Theresa Rodriguez-Moodie | A turning point for environmental accountability?

When the December 2023 oil spill occurred in the Rio Cobre, it was the latest in a long history of pollution incidents affecting this major river in Jamaica. The National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) identified the source as a malfunctioning boiler at the former Jamaica Beverage Plant, now operated by Trade Winds Citrus Limited (TWCL).

Under Jamaican environmental law, pollution incidents are considered strict liability offences – meaning a company or individual can be held legally responsible regardless of intent or negligence. It is a system designed to prioritise prevention and accountability. Yet, despite having what appeared to be adequate evidence, NEPA chose to resolve the matter through private mediation, bound by a non-disclosure agreement.

Following public outcry, Matthew Samuda, who serves as minister without portfolio in the Ministry of Economic Growth & Job Creation, required the release of the mediation agreement. The agreement, dated November 2024, revealed that TWCL did not admit guilt, and both TWCL and NEPA agreed not to initiate or support legal action against each other. The agreement also bound both parties to strict confidentiality, not just about the agreement’s contents, but even its existence. TWCL committed to improving its environmental practices and cooperating with NEPA in monitoring and developing sustainable solutions for the Rio Cobre near its operations. For many, this was simply not enough.

Thirty-nine civil society groups and concerned individuals then wrote to the director of public prosecutions (DPP), requesting her office to investigate how the matter was handled. Their concern was not just about this one incident, but the troubling questions it raised about NEPA’s commitment to environmental justice and accountability.

WHAT THE DPP STATEMENT REVEALED

The DPP has now completed her review and released a public statement on Friday, May 9. The statement confirmed what many felt: TWCL ought to have pleaded guilty to charges under the Wildlife Protection Act for the discharge of oil into the environment. According to the DPP, the appropriate process would have been a formal plea negotiation – subject to court approval and disclosed through court proceedings. Her findings underscore serious concerns about how environmental breaches are handled in Jamaica.

One of the most striking outcomes of the DPP’s review is the revocation of the general fiat (permission to prosecute) previously granted to NEPA and the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA). Going forward, legal officers from these agencies must apply on a case-by-case basis to participate in prosecutions. They may only observe proceedings or contribute with express permission from the DPP’s office.

This decision speaks volumes. Jamaica’s primary environmental regulatory agency, NEPA/NRCA – equipped with a legal department and clear statutory powers – failed to pursue and secure the prosecution of an environmental offender. The agency appeared to weigh TWCL’s cleanup efforts and expenditure as justification for avoiding a formal guilty plea. In doing so, the agency abandoned a core principle of environmental law: accountability.

The DPP’s findings, however, point to even deeper concerns. What is going to happen in the cases that do not attract media attention? What if no community representatives had been present in court that day to publicise what had occurred? How many other cases have been quietly mediated, with no guilty plea entered and no public disclosure?

There is little reason to believe this was an isolated event. Consider the recent incident near Fort Rocky in the Palisadoes-Port Royal Protected Area, where a state agency, the Jamaica National Heritage Trust (JNHT), cleared land and removed sand dunes without an environmental permit or proper studies.

This violated the NRCA Act and Natural Resources Conservation (Protected Areas) Regulations, 2023. Yet the only consequence was a request from NEPA to rehabilitate the site – there was no requirement for acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the offender, no legal action taken, just a reference to it being a ‘mistake’ by the government representatives present at a site visit on March 11.

But the law is clear: the NRCA Act binds the Crown. The government is not above the law it enacts and enforces.

These examples expose long-standing weaknesses in Jamaica’s environmental governance. The issue is not just gaps in the law, but institutional reluctance to use the enforcement tools that already exist.

THERE IS STILL HOPE FOR IMPROVEMENT

Still, there is hope. The DPP’s position affirms the importance of transparency, public accountability, and proper legal process. Citizens are paying closer attention, demanding answers, and showing up in courtrooms. That pressure matters.

This must be a turning point. Jamaica needs an environmental regulatory authority that operates not just as a granter and manager of permits, but as a protector of the public interest. They must treat environmental offences with the seriousness they deserve – because they impact lives, livelihoods, ecosystems and the future of our country.

Theresa Rodriguez-Moodie is an environmental scientist and chief executive officer of the Jamaica Environment Trust. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.